D&D General Just sweeping dirty dishes under the rug: D&D, Sexism, and the '70s

[Bedrockgames]

I mean, poor, poor Quentin Tarantino. That guy has really had to struggle, hasn't he? He's really seen his career limited.

Quentin is going to be fine. He can make whatever movie he wants next. The point of the quote isn't to lament Quentin's state of creative freedom. The quote wasn't about his own work (when he said it he also acknowledged he was grandfathered in and could get away with more than other people, and he even seemed to suggest that other people could have more creative freedom if they were willing to push for it). The point of his quote is this is the 80s part II. It a chilling effect we are putting on ourselves. His statement was about how this isn't coming from an external force but from within the culture itself (and I think the 80s is an apt comparison because there was still plenty to like about the 80s in terms of art, but there were these weird cultural forces pushing back on expression, often very unnuanced reactions. And a lot of the media had a sense of the edges being filed off----which isn't to say all, it just a lot more stiff than the 70s or 90s).

 

[abirdcall]

No, I am saying that the statement that we have less creative freedom today is false. Or it's only true from an entitled point of view.

Way more people have way more creative freedom than they did thirty, forty, fifty years ago. People of colour, women, LGBTQ+ folks and many others have gone from almost zero creative freedom to, well, not even close to parity, but a lot more than they had.

Most folks have always had to censor themselves. You think people of colour could express themselves freely wherever they wanted for basically all of American history? They've always had to check themselves. So have women. LGBTQ+ folks couldn't even legally exist for most of that time, let alone enjoy creative freedom. But now that we are asking guys that look like me to be a little mindful too, it's a disaster?

I mean, poor, poor Quentin Tarantino. That guy has really had to struggle, hasn't he? He's really seen his career limited. The golden age that he is hearkening back to is one where basically zero PoC or women could get a big budget to make a major movie, so where was their creative freedom in Hollywood? But he gets a bit of pushback on choosing to write scripts where he has his own character dropping N-bombs like candy (which was cringey and criticized by lots of folks back in 1994, let alone today), and it's the death knell of artistic freedom. I guess he'll just have to take solace in his piles of money, choice of A-list actors, and freedom to make basically any movie he wants when he wants. The humanity.

Because that's what you do when you are mindful of other contexts. Someone once said that "with great power comes great responsibility."

I do NOT agree that there has been a "general chill" on speech. I think that a group of people (straight white men) have lost just a little bit of their cultural hegemony and are acting like having 90% control rather than 99% control is the end of their world. I think that a lot of them were perfectly happy when it was them with the power to "cancel" whoever they wanted, and they don't like that now they also are being asked to show some consideration.

Yeah.

The Matrix might be the best example of this. There is absolutely 0 chance they would have been able to make that movie if they were out at the time. That was true in 1999 and still true today*.

And even though they did get the movie made they still had to remove the only openly trans character they had written for it.

And all of that said, while big budget movies are getting more and more difficult to get green lit, it is far easier to get media out there through platforms like YouTube (the algorithm is a whole other thing, but the media can get created and posted without costing tens of thousands or more).

*For any other trans creators. They were invited to make The Matrix 4 but only because they had already been given the opportunity to make the first one.

 

[mellored]

See, this is a serious error in thinking.

Our today is based on the decisions of yesterday. To understand racism, sexism and other evils, we have to understand their roots, their outlook, their expression. Because otherwise it is easy to miss the impact the decisions of yesterday are having today.

Edit: You did say the problem was solved. You said "why bring up a problem from 50 years ago that was solved 25 years ago" or something to that effect (I'm going to re-edit this if I got it wrong).

edit part deux: the exact quote is "How does bringing up 50 year old problems that have been resolved 25 years ago help?"

So yes, you did claimed it was solved. You're moving the goal post.

Point to the sexism in the current book.

 

[Staffan]

Dark settings exist and usually (not always), PCs play the role of heroes and liberators. We just saw a decent handful of posts by posters in this thread requiring actual activism IRL but somehow activism in fantasy is just too traumatic to read about. Seriously?

That comes back to my comparison with Black Panther and Luke Cage as black wish fulfillment. Black Panther is a king in essentially Utopia. There are certainly threats around, and there are things that could be better, but as a whole his job is to defend the status quo of Wakanda. Luke Cage is a street-level Hero for Hire in Harlem. He deals with street crime, corrupt cops, and gets racism thrown in his face all the time. But Luke has the power to change that, or at least resist it. I believe the TV series used the phrase that he was a racist cop's worst nightmare: a bulletproof nBLEEEP.

These are different approaches to wish fulfillment. One is "What if the world was good actually?", and the other is "What if the world is bad, but you have the power to change it?" I think that if you look at the reception the Black Panther movie got, it's clear that that's a thing a lot of people like, and D&D in general tends to be more about defending the status quo (because if you make major changes to a setting, that invalidates previous setting material).

Dark Sun is definitely more of a Luke Cage world. And trying to make a new version of it is a frickin' minefield (and also a mindfield, given psionics). I can't blame Wizards for saying their efforts are better spent elsewhere. Because that's the other thing to consider: the question isn't Dark Sun or no Dark Sun. It's Dark Sun or, say, Birthright, or the Savage Coast (which has its own issues, but probably easier to deal with).

 

[Mannahnin]

There was a definite line over which AD&D misogyny could cross; and did - in the first version of Palace of the Silver Princess. And while it is gratifying that the line has moved in a positive direction, I understand those who would want it moved even farther along.

You're talking about how the module and Jean Wells were treated and talked about by TSR staffers?

The fact that they wouldn't remake Dark Sun now, and that we all understand why, even though I think most of us understand the point of a setting like that isn't to promote anything bad, shows that there has been a chilling impact on creative fields in the past ten years or so. Is that government censorship and a first amendment violation? No. But it does mean people don't feel like they can create as freely as they did before. Yes the Dark Sun is still available. They wouldn't be able to make it again without running into issues. Smaller publishers can possibly do it, because they don't have to worry about as many things as a large one like WOTC. I tend to agree with Tarantino, we are living through the 80s part two (doesn't mean everything is bad but there are more constraints the culture is imposing on itself creatively)

Smaller publishers can absolutely do it, and frequently DO make much darker products than Dark Sun ever was.

I don't think the data supports your "chilling impact" thesis at all. As Hussar pointed out, we have more RPG products and more access to older products today than we ever have. And new products are being published at a greater rate and in greater variety.

Hasbro WotC not publishing a setting which centrally features slavery and psionics (the latter of which they still haven't figured out an implementation they like for) is kind of like Disney not making an animated feature film about slavery. We cannot expect the biggest, most kid-focused entertainment provider in a given category/medium to provide the edgier mature content.

I think the content warning is a bit silly, but it doesn't bother me in the least. If I hadn't specifically looked for the content warning when I recently purchased the 1983 Greyhawk set I would have missed it entirely. The reason I find the content warning silly is that I don't really see it serving any purpose beyond making WotC feel good about themselves.

1. The warning doesn't really give an idea of what the contents might be.
2. Who buys a game product from 30-40 years ago expecting it to be up to modern sensibilities?

Given how big their audience is? Some people, for certain. You know the XKCD comic about the 10,000?

Historical fiction exists. Spartacus (2010-2013).
Historical non-fiction exists too.

Handmaid's Tale (2017-2025). Species.

No comment.

Dark settings exist and usually (not always), PCs play the role of heroes and liberators. We just saw a decent handful of posts by posters in this thread requiring actual activism IRL but somehow activism in fantasy is just too traumatic to read about. Seriously?

EDIT: I'm not advocating for a current Dark Sun setting book. I never played in it and never owned any Dark Sun material. WotC can do what they want - and I agree with others that having the old stuff available is great. I just find many of the justifications for DS's themes apparently being too problematic are invalid given all other the media (entertainment, news, religion) that we consume.
Somehow the message got muddled somewhere and the perception became that WotC was catering for Montessori.

As you note, all those kinds of materials and themes in fiction are being produced. WotC is functionally the Disney of this media/entertainment sector, and it's understandable that they aim their products for broad appeal and minimal risk of disturbing the parents of kids who play.

 

[Azzy]

Heard that one before. In principle, i agree. Problem is, what is evil and good falls under morality and ethics and those are subjective.

I dunno. Oppressing, denigrating, and scapegoating marginalized people is pretty universally evil. There's not a whole lot of nuance there.

 

[Steampunkette]

Dark Sun is definitely more of a Luke Cage world. And trying to make a new version of it is a frickin' minefield (and also a mindfield, given psionics). I can't blame Wizards for saying their efforts are better spent elsewhere. Because that's the other thing to consider: the question isn't Dark Sun or no Dark Sun. It's Dark Sun or, say, Birthright, or the Savage Coast (which has its own issues, but probably easier to deal with).

It's -really- not that difficult to make a version of Dark Sun which people would enjoy in the modern day, that would get published in the modern day without much issue.

WotC are just uninterested in taking that step because it's a big chunk of what killed TSR. Not the setting's contents, mind you. The setting existing at all.

TSR wound up running -way- too many product lines devoted to different settings and saw a massive decrease on return of investment for Dark Sun, Ravenloft, Dragonlance, Birthright, Etc. Because while having a bunch of settings is great and allows people to play in different worlds, -supporting- those settings required continued investment while the paying public mostly only had enough money to focus on their favorite setting and to pick up a box set of some other setting, once in a while, for side-campaigns or planesfaring stuff.

The number of people who bought the Dark Sun boxed set in 1991 was significantly higher than the number of people who bought "The Last Sea" boxed set in 1996.

And it was like that for all of the products TSR put out. They flooded their own niche market with tons of products that essentially became shovelware. They cost more to make and print than the company could get out of them.

WotC could make a modern Dark Sun. -I- could make a modern Dark Sun.

WotC just doesn't want to go through the hassle for the low RoI.

 

[TiQuinn]

chilling effect on creativity

Whose creativity? At the end of the day if WotC, Disney or whoever want a particular type of product, they’re going to pay people to make the kind of product they want to see on the market. But that doesn’t mean more controversial or riskier products can’t be made. Just don’t expect it to be WotC.

 

[GrimCo]

On the other hand, TSR didn't have benefit of modern print on demand and digital distribution channels. While there still is cost in making new version Dark Sun, with digital only product, you cut out huge chunk of cost that's associated with physical products. Question is, even with digital only, would it sell enough to be profitable. If they don't want to tackle that can of worms, sure, i get it. But i don't get why they don't try to license it out to third party. They have decent amount of settings from TSR era that just sit on their shelves. With licensing, some third party could bring old settings to new era and WOTC still gets paid and they don't put their corporate logo on those more dicey products.

 

[Voadam]

It's -really- not that difficult to make a version of Dark Sun which people would enjoy in the modern day, that would get published in the modern day without much issue.

WotC are just uninterested in taking that step because it's a big chunk of what killed TSR. Not the setting's contents, mind you. The setting existing at all.

TSR wound up running -way- too many product lines devoted to different settings and saw a massive decrease on return of investment for Dark Sun, Ravenloft, Dragonlance, Birthright, Etc. Because while having a bunch of settings is great and allows people to play in different worlds, -supporting- those settings required continued investment while the paying public mostly only had enough money to focus on their favorite setting and to pick up a box set of some other setting, once in a while, for side-campaigns or planesfaring stuff.

The number of people who bought the Dark Sun boxed set in 1991 was significantly higher than the number of people who bought "The Last Sea" boxed set in 1996.

And it was like that for all of the products TSR put out. They flooded their own niche market with tons of products that essentially became shovelware. They cost more to make and print than the company could get out of them.

WotC could make a modern Dark Sun. -I- could make a modern Dark Sun.

WotC just doesn't want to go through the hassle for the low RoI.

That seems demonstrably counter to WotC’s 5e setting practice and strategy.

Ravnica, Theros, Strixhaven, Eberron, Ravenloft, Dragonlance, Spelljammer, Planescape, and Greyhaek have all been one setting and done for 5e. No follow up WotC product lines or even short modules. Just Dmsguild opened up for them.

Forgotten Realms is the only setting with follow up support afterwards in the big modules. I guess the critical role setting as well.

If Dark Sun came out I would expect it to be one and done too.